UTTAM NARAYANMAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 19(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

The learned Commissioner of Income Tax App 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals (National eals (National Faceless Appeal Centre), Delhi erred in confirming the order Faceless Appeal Centre), Delhi erred in confirming the order Faceless Appeal Centre), Delhi erred in confirming the order under section 154 passed by the Income Tax Officer under section 154 passed by the Income Tax Officer under section 154 passed by the Income Tax Officer - Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai (Assessing Officer) that the mistake of 19(3)(1), Mumbai (Assessing Officer) that the mistake of 19(3)(1), Mumbai (Assessing Officer) that the mistake of considering the profit of proprietary concern of the appellant considering the profit of proprietary concern of the appellant considering the profit of proprietary concern of the appellant twice at the time of computing the total income of the appellant is ice at the time of computing the total income of the appellant is ice at the time of computing the total income of the appellant is not a mistake apparent from record and therefore cannot be not a mistake apparent from record and therefore cannot be not a mistake apparent from record and therefore cannot be rectified under section 154 of the Act. Your Appellant submits rectified under section 154 of the Act. Your Appellant submits rectified under section 154 of the Act. Your Appellant submits that the aforementioned mistake is a mistake apperrant from that the aforementioned mistake is a mistake apperrant from that the aforementioned mistake is a mistake apperrant from record and the same ought to be rectified under section 154 of nd the same ought to be rectified under section 154 of nd the same ought to be rectified under section 154 of the Act.

The learned Assessing Officer erred in not allowing the 2. The learned Assessing Officer erred in not allowing the 2. The learned Assessing Officer erred in not allowing the appellant to change the head for deduction claimed in respect of appellant to change the head for deduction claimed in respect of appellant to change the head for deduction claimed in respect of profit from proprietary concern amounting to Rs. 32,28,110 from, profit from proprietary concern amounting to Rs. 32,28,110 from, profit from proprietary concern amounting to Rs. 32,28,110 from, "Income/receipts credited to profit and loss account considered "Income/receipts credited to profit and loss account considered "Income/receipts credited to profit and loss account considered under under under other other other heads heads heads of of of income/chargeable income/chargeable income/chargeable u/s u/s u/s 115BBF/ 115BBF/ 115BBF/ chargeable u/s 115BBG Other sources" at Sr. No. 3(d) of chargeable u/s 115BBG Other sources" at Sr. No. 3(d) of chargeable u/s 115BBG Other sources" at Sr. No. 3(d) of Schedule BP to "Any other amount allowable as deduction" at Sr. Schedule BP to "Any other amount allowable as deduction" at Sr. Schedule BP to "Any other amount allowable as deduction" at Sr. No. 32 of Schedule BP No. 32 of Schedule BP. Your Appellant submits that the . Your Appellant submits that the Assessing Officer ought to have allowed the appellant to change Assessing Officer ought to have allowed the appellant to change Assessing Officer ought to have allowed the appellant to change the head of deduction under section 154 of the Act. the head of deduction under section 154 of the Act. 2. At the outset, a letter has been filed on behalf of the assessee a letter has been filed on behalf of the assessee a letter has been filed on behalf of the assessee wherein it is submitted that the asses wherein it is submitted that the assessee had filed see had filed this appeal electronically on the portal of the Income electronically on the portal of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). But subsequently, the assessee also filed a hard copy of the (ITAT). But subsequently, the assessee also filed a hard copy of the (ITAT). But subsequently, the assessee also filed a hard copy of the appeal which was registered at which has appeal which was registered at ITA No. 2950/M/2023 appeal which was registered at ITA No. 2950/M/2023 also been heard and disposed off also been heard and disposed off by the Tribunal in order dated by the Tribunal in order dated 30.01.2024. The assessee has filed a copy of the order of the Co- 30.01.2024. The assessee has filed a copy of the order of the Co 30.01.2024. The assessee has filed a copy of the order of the Co ordinate Bench of the Tribunal dated 30.01.2024. In view of the ordinate Bench of the Tribunal dated 30.01.2024. In view of the ordinate Bench of the Tribunal dated 30.01.2024. In view of the above order, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) also agreed above order, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) also agreed above order, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) also agreed that the present e-filed appea filed appeal is merely duplicate and therefore, l is merely duplicate and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed as infructuous. Accordingly, we order to liable to be dismissed as infructuous. Accordingly, we order to liable to be dismissed as infructuous. Accordingly, we order to dismiss this appeal as infructuous. dismiss this appeal as infructuous.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous.